CTFR 18/761,581 CTFR 85778 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Citation Note In this office action, when the examiner cites applicant’s specification, the examiner is citing paragraph numbers from applicant’s pre-grant publication (U.S. 2025/0010341). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 14 depends from claim 10, which has been amended to now recite “a second holder configured to come into contact with a bottom surface of the second substrate at an outer side than the first holder” and a step of “rubbing…the second substrate…while holding the second substrate horizontally by the second holder”. This “second holder” language of claim 10 is thus reciting the “second holder” discussed, for example, in Par. [0041]-[0047] and [0059]-[0061] of applicant’s specification. However, the “third holder” of claim 14 is reciting the “third holder” discussed, for example, in Par. [0098]-[0101] of applicant’s specification. Applicant’s specification, as originally filed, does not teach an embodiment that comprises both the “second holder” and the “third holder”. Paragraph [0098] of applicant’s specification presents applicant’s “third holder” as an alternative to the “second holder”. Applicant appears to have accidentally overlooked that the new claim amendments improperly blend alternative embodiments to create (in claim 14) an embodiment having both the “second holder” and the “third holder”. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the charged second substrate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0159097 by Obaru in view of U.S. 2014/0299508 by Wang . With regard to claim 10, Obaru teaches a substrate processing method using an apparatus that comprises a processor configured to process a silicon substrate with processing liquid, wherein the processor comprises a holder 20 that comprises a first holder 21 (first holder 21 of Obaru corresponds to applicant’s first holder ) and a second holder 22, wherein the first holder holds the substrate horizontally, wherein the first holder comes into contact with a center of a bottom surface of the substrate, and wherein the processor has a rotation mechanism 15 (applicant’s rotation driver ) configured to rotate the first holder 21 about a vertical rotation axis (Par. 0023-0048). In the method of Obaru, the processor receives a to-be-processed substrate from a transferrer (Par. 0027 and 0051). Obaru teaches that a bottom center of a cleaned substrate is first simultaneously cleaned via brushing and supplied ammonia water (which is an alkaline aqueous solution) prior to the substrate being brought into contact with the first holder 21 (Par. 0059 and 0063). In the method of Obaru, the brush reads on applicant’s friction body , and the brush brushes the bottom center of the substate while the substrate is held by the second holder 22 of the holder (Par. 0051 and 0059). Since the bottom of the substrate faces downward and is exposed to air, the air is considered to contribute to some level of drying of the substate after the ammonia water is supplied to the bottom center of the substrate, and the substrate is subsequently loaded onto the first holder by having the first holder contact the center of the substrate (Par. 0063). Obaru does not teach that the duration of the discharge of ammonia water is such that it extends from before brushing-and-simultaneous-ammonia-water treatment until after the end of said simultaneous treatment. However, since the point of the ammonia water is to rinse the substrate, the duration of the of the rinsing step can be considered a result-effective variable as it affects how much undesired material can be rinsed away from the substrate, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Obaru by optimizing the duration of the discharge of ammonia water. Obaru doesn’t explicitly teach that a second substrate gets brought into contact with the first holder 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Obaru such that the apparatus is used to process a series of more than one substrate – meaning that a second substrate gets processed by the method of Obaru. Motivation would be to process more than one substrate, thus increasing production. In this modified method of Obaru, the processing of the second substrate is reasonably expected to result in cleaning of the first holder when the first holder is brought into contact with the center of the bottom surface of the second substrate, wherein the cleaning involves particles adhering to the first holder being electrostatically attracted to and attached to the second substrate, as the modified method of Obaru teaches performing the same method steps as recited by applicant with the same materials as recited by applicant – namely, by simultaneously brushing and cleaning the bottom center of the substrate with ammonia water (which is an alkaline aqueous solution) and allowing the air to perform some amount of drying of the bottom surface of the substrate before the substrate gets delivered to the first holder 21 from the second holder 22. Obaru does not teach that the apparatus comprises a storage configured to store the second substrate. Wang teaches storage cassette (known in the semiconductor substrate art as a “FOUP”) that can successfully store a plurality of to-be-processed substrates (Par. 0017-0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Obaru such that the plurality of substrates that are to be processed are stored in a FOUP (reads on applicant’s storage ) of the type taught by Wang. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wang, who teaches storage cassette (known in the semiconductor substrate art as a “FOUP”) that can successfully store a plurality of to-be-processed substrates. In the combination of Obaru in view of Wang, two substrates are stored in the FOUP and processed by the processer. These two substrates are considered to be provided separately because they are different substrates and one of the substrates is provided (via the transferrer) to the processor before the other. With regard to claim 15, the combination of Obaru in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that electrical charge accumulates on the second substrate in the storage cassette. Wang teaches that the storage cassette can successfully be used to hold substrates while they are being transported to a processing location (Par. 0018-0020 of Wang). Wang further teaches that friction (such as might occur during transportation) between a substrate and its storage cassette can cause electrical charge to accumulate on the substrate (Par. 0017-0027 of Wang). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Obaru in view of Wang such that the storage cassette is also used to transport its substrates to the environment of the processor. The to-be-processed substrates have to somehow get to the processor in the first place, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wang, who teaches that storage cassette can successfully be used to hold substrates during their transport. In this combination of Obaru in view of Wang, it is reasonably expected that electrical charge will accumulate on the second substrate while the substrate is in the storage cassette due to friction. Wang teaches that friction (such as might occur during transportation) between a substrate and its storage cassette can cause electrical charge to accumulate on the substrate (Par. 0017-0027 of Wang). With regard to claim 17, in the combination of Obaru in view of Wange, the holder comprises a plurality of elevating pins 171 (see Figures 2 and 6B of Obaru) provided around the first holder 21, and the method involves having the second substrate contact the pins 171 such that the pins 171 can lower the second substrate onto the first holder 22 (Par. 0027 and 0051 of Obaru). The combination of Obaru in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that the second substrate is a substrate that was charged at some point in time. Wang teaches that the storage cassette can successfully be used to hold substrates while they are being transported to a processing location (Par. 0018-0020 of Wang). Wang further teaches that friction (such as might occur during transportation) between a substrate and its storage cassette can cause electrical charge to accumulate on the substrate (Par. 0017-0027 of Wang). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Obaru in view of Wang such that the storage cassette is also used to transport its substrates to the environment of the processor. The to-be-processed substrates have to somehow get to the processor in the first place, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wang, who teaches that storage cassette can successfully be used to hold substrates during their transport. In this combination of Obaru in view of Wang, it is reasonably expected that electrical charge will accumulate on the second substrate while the substrate is in the storage cassette due to friction. Wang teaches that friction (such as might occur during transportation) between a substrate and its storage cassette can cause electrical charge to accumulate on the substrate (Par. 0017-0027 of Wang) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0159097 by Obaru in view of U.S. 2014/0299508 by Wang as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of KR20210066103 by Kim in view of U.S. 2010/021696 by Muraki . With regard to claim 16, the combination of Obaru in view of Wang does not explicitly recite that the silicon substrate has an oxide film on the bottom thereof. Kim teaches that a substrate in need of cleaning can comprise natural oxide film on its surfaces (page 3 of translation). Muraki teaches a well-known fact about silicon – namely, that silicon is easily oxidized such that atmospheric oxygen can cause natural silicon oxide film to form on a silicon substrate (Par. 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Obaru in view of Wang such that the cleaned silicon substrate is a substrate that was exposed to air such that an amount of natural silicon oxide is formed on the bottom surface of the substrate. Kim teaches that a substrate in need of cleaning can comprise natural oxide film on its surfaces, and Muraki teaches the well-known fact that silicon is easily oxidized such that atmospheric oxygen can cause natural silicon oxide film to form on a silicon substrate. The motivation for performing the modification would be to allow a silicon substate with natural oxide film and contaminants on its bottom to be cleaned by the cleaning steps taught by the method of Obaru in view of Wang. Claim 14 Discussion As discussed above, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reciting new matter that was not disclosed in the ordinal specification. The examiner was unable to use the reviewed prior art to make a prior-art-based rejection of claim 14. However, since the examiner can’t predict how applicant might choose to amend claim 14 in response to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 14, the examiner is not yet willing to say that claim 14 comprises allowable subject matter. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. On page 11 of applicant’s arguments, applicant states that “Obaru…does not explicitly teach…or brining the second substrate into contact with the first holder”. It is noted that applicant seems to be saying this in relation to the combination of Obaru in view of Yokekawa presented in the Non-Final Rejection. That combination of Obaru in view of Yokekawa is not presented again in this Final Rejection. It is noted that, in the Non-Final Rejection, the examiner also rejected claim 10 under a modified version of Obaru (without the Yokekawa reference, see Paragraph 24 of the Non-Final Rejection). In that modified version of Obaru, a second substrate is brought into contact with the first holder. Applicant argues the following: The Office further argues that, because the substrate bottom of Obaru faces downward and is exposed to air, the air is considered to provide some drying after ammonia water is supplied to the bottom center, and the substrate is then loaded onto the first holder by bringing the first holder into contact with the center of the substrate (paragraph [0063] of Obaru). Id . The Office also asserts that, although Obaru does not expressly teach discharging ammonia water for a duration extending from before the brushing-and-simultaneous-ammonia-water treatment until after completion of that simultaneous treatment, the discharge duration would have been an obvious result-effective variable for rinsing performance, and thus it would have been obvious to optimize the ammonia-water discharge time. Id . Respectfully, the above assertions are incorrect. This argument is not persuasive because it is simply an assertion by applicant that the examiner is incorrect . The examiner articulated his reasoning for how such claim limitations are rendered obvious in view of the prior art. Applicant’s response is simply to assert these positions as incorrect , and thus applicant’s response is not persuasive. An assertion of incorrectness is not a persuasive argument. Applicant argues that “claim 10 has been amended to include a configuration for cleaning the first holder using a second substrate that is separate from the substrate to be processed”. Applicant argues that “this feature makes clear the technical concept of managing and transferring a dedicated cleaning substrate independent of the substrate processing operation to clean the first holder”. It is noted that this language does not manage to recite the concept that the second substate is necessarily a dedicated cleaning substrate, and that would indeed be a difficult concept to capture in claim language. In the combination of Obaru in view of Wang used above to reject claim 10, two substrates are stored in the FOUP and processed by the processer. These two substrates are considered to be provided separately because they are different substrates and one of the substrates is provided (via the transferrer) to the processor before the other. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RLC/ Ryan L. Coleman Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714 /KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 2 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 3 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 4 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 5 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 6 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 7 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 8 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 9 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 10 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 11 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 12 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 13 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/761,581 Page 14 Art Unit: 1714
Prosecution Insights